Science-utility and science-trust associations and how they relate to knowledge about how science works

Knowledge about how science works, trust in scientists, and the perceived utility of science currently appear to be eroding in these times in which “alternative facts” or personal experiences and opinions are used as arguments. Yet, in many situations, it would be beneficial for the individual and all of society if scientific findings were considered in decision-making. For this to happen, people have to trust in scientists and perceive science as useful. Still, in university contexts, it might not be desirable to report negative beliefs about science. In addition, science-utility and science-trust associations may differ from explicit beliefs because associations were learned through the co-occurrence of stimuli rather than being based on propositional reasoning. We developed two IATs to measure science-utility and science-trust associations in university students and tested the psychometric properties and predictive potential of these measures. In a study of 261 university students, the IATs were found to have good psychometric properties and small correlations with their corresponding self-report scales. Science-utility and science-trust associations predicted knowledge about how science works over and above self-reported beliefs. The results suggest that indirect measures are useful for assessing beliefs about science and can be used to predict outcome measures.


Variables assessed in the study
The following variables were assessed in the study in the following order: 1. explicit trust in science 2. explicit utility of science and of personal experiences 3. implicit trust in science 4. implicit utility of science 5. epistemic beliefs o 26 items in five scales: certainty, simplicity, personal justification, justification by authority, and justification by multiple sources. The items for certainty and simplicity were translated from Bråten and Strømsø (2010). The items for the three justification scales were translated from Ferguson et al. (2013). Instead of a specific content domain, all items were phrased such that they referred to science in general.
6. knowledge about how science works 7. demographics 8. pretest for another study o prior beliefs for the following topics (6 items each)  Can regular physical exercise prevent cognitive problems at older ages?
 Can a positive environment prevent adolescents from taking drugs?
 Can sweeteners such as Aspartame harm health?
 Does the consumption of violent media enhance the violent behavior of adolescents?
 Do children need toys for their optimal development?
 Is tourism beneficial for the Alps region?
o interest in these topics (1 item each) o description of 8 one-sentence scenarios with different targets (e.g., professor, best friend) who ask the participant to search for information  rating of perceived stakes in this situation  rating of the degree to which a personal relationship exists with this person  rating of the degree to which an academic relationship exists with this person o rating of titles and authors for one of the six abovementioned topics in a fictitious search engine result page  relevance of the title to the question (20 titles to be rated)  authors' scientific expertise (16 authors to be rated)  authors' personal experiences (16 authors to be rated)

Questionnaire on utility of science and of personal experiences
The questionnaire on utility of science and of personal experiences was based on Kiemer and Kollar (2021). The items were rephrased to refer to science in general. The following items were used to assess the utility of science and of personal experiences (originally in German): Table S1. Items of the questionnaire on utility of science and of personal experiences.

Knowledge about how science works
The following items were used to assess knowledge about how science works and were based on Retzbach et al. (2015). Only the items that were included in the final score are presented. The original items were in German and are presented at the end. Scientist B found a study on two teams at a big company in which one team changed to

English translation of items
working in an open-plan office, while the other did not (control group design). This study also showed negative effects of working in an open-plan office.
Scientist C found a study on a team at a big company in which a phase involving single office work ( o Working in an open-plan office probably has no negative effects because the metaanalysis found by scientist D did not show negative effects. S1 Appendix: Knowledge about how science works 8 4. Please imagine the following situation: A clairvoyant claims that he can predict the courses of a set meal that an arbitrary guest will eat in a restaurant. It is known that the guest will choose an appetizer, a main dish, and a dessert. In this restaurant, 3 different appetizers, 7 different main dishes, and 5 different desserts are offered.
What is the probability that the courses can be guessed by chance? From among the following statements, please choose the one that you consider most likely to be true: o The probability is 1/3 because there are three different appetizers.
o The probability is 1/3 + 1/7 + 1/5 because the probabilities of the single courses have to be added.
o The probability is 1/7 because there are seven different main dishes.
o The probability is 1/3 * 1/7 * 1/5 because the probabilities of the single courses have to be multiplied.
5. Please imagine the following situation: A scientist found that within a radius of 500 meters around electrical towers, significantly more people get cancer than outside of this radius. He chose a level of significance of 5%.
Which statement can be made? From among the following statements, please choose the one that you consider most likely to be true: o Given that the same number of people get cancer within and outside of the radius, the probability of finding the significant result that he found is 5%.
o The probability of getting cancer within the radius is 95%.
o The probability of finding these results is 95% because the truth is that more people get cancer outside the radius.
o The probability of getting cancer outside the radius is 5%. S1 Appendix: Knowledge about how science works 9 6. Please imagine the following situation: A scientist wants to publish a study he conducted. He writes an article about the study and submits it to a renowned scientific journal (with peer review).
What happens to his article? From among the following statements, please choose the one that you consider most likely to be true: o The article goes to a proofreader working for the journal's publisher. The proofreader evaluates how well-written the article is and decides whether or not the article should be accepted.
o The article goes to the editor of the journal. The editor evaluates the quality of the article and is the only person who gets to decide whether the article should be accepted.
o The article is forwarded to several experts in the field who evaluate the quality of the article. Afterwards, the editor of the journal decides whether the article should be accepted.
o The article goes to the editor of the journal and to a proofreader working for the journal's publisher. The editor evaluates the content of the article, the proofreader the language. Together they decide whether or not the article should be accepted.
7. Please imagine the following situation: Two scientists want to research whether people with similar personalities are more appealing to each other. Each scientist conducts a study with 1,000 participants who are each randomly placed into dyads with a person they did not know before.
In the study by scientist A, all participants have to fill out questionnaire alpha on their personality. Afterwards, they have to decide whether their partner is likeable or not.
In the study by scientist B, all participants also have to fill out a questionnaire on their personality, but it is questionnaire beta. Afterwards, they have to rate how likeable their partner is on a scale ranging from 1-10.

Sample: Programs of study by gender
In Table S2, the participants' study program are listed by gender. Note. Discrepancies between the sums of the female and male students and the overall number of students per program are due to missing or third gender category answers on the gender variable.